Do Workers Still Need To Pay For Depreciation Of Protective Equipment When They Resign?

Zhang signed a labor contract with a chemical plant for three years and was engaged in production in the workshop. Due to frequent exposure to toxic and harmful substances in the work, the factory has bought and distributed protective clothing, such as gas mask, gas protective clothing and gloves for all workers.

Not long ago, Zhang worked in the factory and was resigned to the factory, demanding a lifting of one year's labor contract. Although the factory agreed to her resignation request, but the normal use of a protective device for 3 years, and she only worked for two years, the protective equipment had to be wasted, she was required to bear the depreciation cost of 1/3. Zhang questioned this.

Analysis:

The reason for the factory can not be established, Zhang does not need to bear protective products. Depreciation charge 。

On the one hand, the purchase of protective equipment for workers is the legal obligation of the factory. Labor protection articles are those provided by the production and business units for employees, so that they are free from or mitigating accidents in the labor process. Occupational hazards Personal protective equipment. The fifty-fourth provision of the labor law stipulates: "the employer must provide workers with labor safety and hygiene conditions and necessary labor protection supplies that meet the requirements of the state. Worker Health checks should be conducted regularly. "

That is to say, workers based on Zhang need regular exposure to toxic and harmful substances, which will cause harm to the body. Not only does she have the right to request the factory to provide corresponding protective equipment, but also the factory itself must provide her with unconditional initiative, and the cost must be paid from the factory's "special funds", which obviously does not belong to the "loss", so the factory can not be transferred to her in any form or any reason.

On the other hand, the factory has no right to ask her for compensation. The ninetieth provision of the labor contract law stipulates that "workers who break the labor contract in violation of the provisions of this law, or violate the confidentiality obligations stipulated in the labor contract or the competition restrictions, shall be liable for compensation if they cause losses to the employing units." Zhang did not undertake the obligation of confidentiality or competition restrictions. She resigned to the factory 30 days in advance, which was legal. The company naturally had no right to ask her to bear depreciation fees.